The High Court has dismissed an application filed by Henry Mwebe, who had sought to revive a Shs 24 million claim against a friend, Robert Kagoda.
In a ruling delivered on April 29, 2026, Justice Susan Odongo said the matter had already been decided by the Nabweru Chief Magistrate’s Court; it was not helpful to raise it in the high court.
The dispute started on June 14, 2019, when Mwebe said he advanced Kagoda a soft loan worth Shs24 million. According to court records, the money included Shs20 million principal and Shs4 million as agreed interest, payable within one month.
Mwebe first sued Kagoda in 2019 before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mengo, seeking recovery of the money. That case was later settled through a consent judgment in which Kagoda reportedly agreed to pay Shs 22 million.
However, another dispute later emerged over a cheque dated July 24, 2019, which Mwebe said Kagoda issued through Equity Bank’s New Taxi Park branch. Mwebe argued that the cheque bounced when he tried to bank it.
In 2021, Mwebe filed a fresh case before the Nabweru Chief Magistrate’s Court claiming the Shs 24 million again, this time arguing that the cause of action was different because it arose from a dishonoured cheque rather than the original loan agreement.
Mwebe insisted in court that the two transactions were separate.
The case also drew attention because Mwebe had confiscated Kagoda’s Hino Rainbow bus registration number UBB 750Z. Kagoda said the bus was worth Shs 50 million at the time.
Kagoda told the court that after receiving the loan, he gave Mwebe a cheque as security and also surrendered the bus.
According to Kagoda, the bus was initially taken under the pretext that it would be used for transporting people, but Mwebe later retained it as security for repayment of the loan.
Kagoda later filed another suit seeking recovery of the bus and compensation for lost income.
Mwebe, however, denied unlawfully taking the vehicle. He maintained that the bus had been voluntarily handed over as security for the loan.
At the hearing before the Commercial Court, Mwebe’s lawyer, Ibrahim Kikabi of Kasadha & Partners Co Advocates, argued that the trial magistrate made a legal error by treating the bounced cheque dispute as the same matter that had already been settled at the Mengo court.
Kikabi said that while both cases involved the same parties and amount, the causes of action were completely different.
“The former suit was based on a loan agreement dated 14th June 2019 secured by a motor vehicle, while the latter arises from a dishonoured cheque dated 24th July 2019,” he said.
Kagoda’s lawyers from Generis Advocates disagreed and insisted there was only one transaction.
They argued that the cheque was merely issued as security for the same loan and did not create a fresh cause of action.
Court fines government Shs 10 million over unlawful detention of climate activists
Justice Odongo ultimately sided with Kagoda.
She found that Mwebe had failed to prove that the bounced cheque represented a separate transaction independent from the earlier loan dispute.
“The burden of making a distinction between the two suits was upon [Mwebe],” Justice Odongo ruled.
She said the bounced cheque alone could not create a new legal claim.
Justice Odongo also accepted Kagoda’s argument that the cheque was only security for repayment of the original loan.
“I agree with the finding of the lower court that the dishonoured cheque dated July 24, 2019, was security for the debt of Shs 24,000,000,” she ruled.
She concluded that the matter had already been settled through the earlier consent judgment at the Mengo court and therefore could not be litigated again.
“I am therefore not inclined to allow this application,” Justice Odongo said before dismissing the case.
